Final post

            I particularly enjoyed studying Egyptian art. I believe that I am so drawn into that particular style of art because it has so much mystery not only surrounding the art but the culture as well. I was both intrigued by the visual details we see coming from the Egyptians as well as the culture from which this art came from.

            While I find all Egyptian art beautiful and thought provoking there are several monumental pieces that I know I find absolutely intriguing as does most of the world. The pyramids of Giza are interesting in so many different ways. I find it amazing that they were built as resting places for deceased pharaohs. To have such a large pyramid built in honor of a leader shows the respect the people had for their leaders as well as the great power that these pharaohs had. These pyramids are also very intriguing to me because they are so monumental and large and having been built with no real machinery is absolutely mind blowing. The mystery about how exactly these pyramids were built I believe is what draws me in to them and makes me want to study them even further. Something that I also find interesting that comes from the Egyptian culture is that almost all powerful figures are represented with a beard. I also find it quite intriguing that figures are at times shown with bird like heads or other types of animal heads. Another monumental piece that came from the Egyptians that also interests me is the Great Sphinx. Not only do I find the appearance interesting, the lion body with pharaoh like head, but the history that comes with the structure. One of the main things about the Sphinx that I find interesting is that for periods of time it has in fact been completely covered by sand and yet has been preserved fairly well. The reaction and emotion that I get from looking at both the Great Sphinx and the Pyramids of Giza is complete awe and the feeling of being overwhelmed by their size and beauty.

            I also really enjoyed study art from the Ancient Near East. I think the reason why I found such interest in Ancient Near East art is because there is a wide variety of art being produced. There are votive figures being produced which show the religious aspect of the culture, there are lavishly decorated pieces like The Great Lyre with Bull’s Head, and then there are also pieces that show how there society is ran for example the Stele of Hammurabi. I think that it is the visual details that draw me in more so than the historical context. I really enjoy the use of lapis lazuli in The Great Lyre with Bull’s Head. I think this piece is quite beautiful not only because of the deep blue color but I enjoy how stylized it is, especially the beard.

            Though the Egyptian and Ancient Near East art was my favorite to study I thoroughly enjoyed learning about every culture we covered. I feel that not only did I gain a great amount of knowledge of the cultures that the artwork came from but I also gained an even greater appreciation for the arts through the ages. 

Byzantine

A large portion of the art we see coming from the Byzantine and Early Medieval periods are very stylized. The artworks that are depicting a holy figure or event seem to lack a realistic look more so than any of the other art coming from these periods. We see this probably because the artists are not focused on the naturalism of the piece, but rather depicting a holy figure and representing the power they hold or what they are capable of.

In the image of Christ Enthroned, flanked by angels, Saint Vitalis and Bishop Ecclesius, found on page 239, we see several characteristics that make the image come off as very stylized. This image is located in the halfdome of the sanctuary apse in the Church of San Vitale and stands out greatly due to its gold background. The gold background is something in the image that does not come off as naturalistic. While it makes this image standout and look very grand, which was most likely the purpose behind the gold background, it is not something that we see in real life. If this was a naturalistic mosaic chances are we would be seeing the background blue as if it were the sky. Something that also makes this mosaic appear to be stylized is that Christ seems to be sitting or floating atop of a blue orb. This again is not something we would see in a naturalistic mosaic or in real life. They are showing him atop the blue orb as a representation of the four rivers that flow underneath him, however it is a very literal representation of him being above the rivers. One last thing that makes this appear as a stylized work of art is the landscape beneath the figures. The landscape represented is very small in comparison to the figures. The trees appear to be the same height as the figure’s ankles, which is quite clearly not a naturalistic representation of the trees or the figures. The use of hierarchy of scale makes it quite clear that the figures are the most important component to the mosaic and everything else is small in size so they don’t take away from the figures. The use of hierarchy of scale is generally not something we see in realistic pieces of art.

 Similarly, in the Virgin and Child with Saints and Angels, found on page 245, we see several characteristics that make this image appear to be more stylized rather than realistic. First off we see one of the main things that attract our eyes, which is the gold disks or halos behind the figures heads. This is quite obviously something that we do not see in the real world or in our day to day lives. These figures are shown with these halos to represent that they are in fact holy. In a naturalistic painting we would see the figures more realistically represented so we could tell who they are and that they are holy. Another stylized characteristic that we see is that the figures are elongated. We specifically see this elongation in the legs of the figures. As you can see both the men standing on either side of the Virgin have very long thighs and in comparison the distance from the knees to their ankles are very short. The human form in realistic paintings are shown in proportion. The last characteristic that we see in this artwork that is stylized is that the faces of these figures are outlined. This takes away from the realism however, it makes each face standout and attract attention. 

Roman Art

            Propaganda was an important way in which the emperors of the Roman Empire displayed that all attributes they obtained were positive and would be helpful in leading their society. It was a way the emperors could gain the favor of their people and make sure they had a strong following. However, the ways in which their attributes were displayed vary slightly from sculpture to sculpture, one can also see the difference of propaganda from culture to culture.

            The Commodus as Hercules and portrait head of Caracalla show us that both these rulers are trying to display several attributes they both have to their public. They both are trying to get across the point that they are strong, powerful, and capable of ruling the Roman Empire. They both show the leaders as fairly young. Youth is associated with power as well as showing they will be able to rule for years to come because they are healthy rather than old and sickly.

            However, many of the propagandistic tools that are used in these sculptures differ greatly. The lion head that is being worn by the Commodus as Hercules is a very powerful visual element that makes it easy to tell it is propaganda. Lions are well known to be extremely powerful, aggressive, and strong animals. All the characteristics of the animal are supposed to be seen as attributes the ruler obtains. He may have even killed the lion that he is now wearing as a headdress. Thus showing he has great skills and ability. His body is also fit that we don’t see in the portrait head of Caracalla obviously because it is only a head being represented. However, if we did see the whole body he would probably also be represented as very strong and fit with emphasis on his muscles. The Commodus as Hercules also has a smaller figure by his side that could possibly represent a god or goddess. This is used as propaganda because it shows that the gods are supportive of the emperor’s rule. Commodus as Hercules is also shown having a beard. This in fact represents his wisdom; this shows that he is smart and wise enough to rule.

            The portrait head of Carcalla is shown to be young. He is also represented in a very naturalistic manner. Showing him in a naturalistic way helps others see his resemblance to his other powerful relatives. This helps people understand that it is his rightful duty to be the ruler of the empire.

            The propagandistic elements that we see in both these sculptures seem to play towards the people of that time and of the Roman culture. However, nowadays seeing these sculptures we are able to connect them to being powerful figures, more so the Commodus as Hercules because we see more propagandistic elements. Today it is not likely for us to see a sculpture of say a presidential candidate wearing a lions head with his shirt off. Today that would probably be seen more as a joke and disrespectful than anything. 

Greek Art

I believe that Winckelmann has had a great impact on the way that we view Greek art, more specifically the way we view there widely celebrated statues. He put much emphasis on his opinion that the use of the white marble is what makes the statues appear as “pure” and “simple”. To Winckelmann the simplicity of the white marble is what makes the statues beautiful and admirable. The use of color is only something that needs minor consideration according to Winckelmann, meaning he believes that it would only take away from the statues beauty.

Winckelmann has made our views of not only Greek art, but art in general change drastically than what they potentially would have been. Nowadays we never see Greek statues that are painted. All that is left is generally just the white marble. Winckelmann has led us to believe that because of their lack of color they are beautiful and appear to be more naturalistic. However, little did Winckelmann know the Greek statues were in fact at one time painted. The artists of these statues used color in order to create a more naturalistic figure. I agree with the artists that with color the statues are in fact more naturalistic. We see colors in our everyday life. The clothes we wear, our hair, our eyes, even our skin is different than the white marble.

If Winckelmann hadn’t attributed the Greek statue’s beauty and impressiveness due to its lack of color many artists now would probably be creating statues that incorporated color. Yet, his opinion may be unimportant to today’s artists and they may choose to create their statues without color because they feel that the color takes away from the statues characteristics. After looking at the reconstructions of the white marble statues I now view them differently. Instead of just taking them for as they are I now try to imagine what colors they were painted with as they once were. After viewing the archer from the west pediment of the temple of Aphaia reconstructed I realized how much the look of the statue changes when color is included. When color is added, in my opinion, the statue is completely brought to life and almost makes it more relatable and possibly even more realistic. Another painted reconstruction is the “Peplos” statue. When seeing the painted version I feel that the emphasis on realism is taken away because the use of colors is what I find myself focusing on rather than the actual form. Yet, seeing that the artists did intend for the statues to be painted make me prefer them that way. The “good taste” that Winckelmann was referring to is in fact due to the aging of the statues and their loss of paint. I wonder if Winckelmann saw the statues the way they were originally if he would change his opinion that Greek art embodied “good taste.”